Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is much nicer to be able to talk supportively about a number of amendments—not all of them, but most of them—in this group.

My amendment 29 sets out further detail about the functions that might be covered by standards in areas of linguistic significance. Again, that is in direct response to the committee, which said that an area of linguistic significance is only as important as the changes that it creates for communities.

Those areas will be designated in recognition of the demographic strength of Gaelic in them and/or the level of Gaelic activity. It is recognised that those qualities intersect with many other aspects of community and economic development in those areas, as the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic highlighted.

It is correct, therefore, that the Scottish Languages Bill should provide further detail for public authorities on the sorts of provisions that might be made in standards within an area of linguistic significance.

Amendment 29 also ensures that language planning and development are tied in with other objectives, such as community planning and economic development. I am so often struck by the fact that the aims and aspirations of Gaelic speakers in some traditional communities are very much intertwined with the desires and aspirations of those who do not have Gaelic language. Issues around infrastructure and transport are obvious examples. That is consistent with other measures in the bill, as well as other Scottish Government strategies.

Amendment 28 provides further clarity on the nature of provision that could be included in the standards. Amendments 26 and 27 convert the power to make standards into a duty. I am of the view that it was always the intention to exercise that power. We are content to support those amendments because of the urgency of the situation, as Michael Marra has set out.

Amendments 30 and 31 require an additional procedural step of laying regulations in draft form for consultation. I am a big fan of consulting on things, so I am happy to support those amendments.

Amendment 32 is where we perhaps have a slightly different view. I take on board Michael Marra’s point about the perilous state of the language and the urgency of the required response. The amendment imposes a strict time limit of one year from royal assent for the first laying of regulations. We feel that that could be too restrictive. We want to be able to develop the standards and requirements properly, in consultation with stakeholders, as required by the existing provisions in the bill, which would be enhanced by Michael Marra’s amendments 30 and 31. Meeting the time limit in amendment 32 could hit a number of challenges, not all of which are within the Government’s control. For example, it is quite likely that, on this occasion, the time limit would run into the end of the current five-year parliamentary session, which would risk making the ability to meet the time limit challenging or impossible. The spirit of amendment 32 is well understood, but we feel that keeping to the time limit will not always be possible and that, therefore, it is too restrictive.

Absolutely—we will give that some consideration.

I wind up by saying that everything that Miles Briggs said is true—he is absolutely right to describe how difficult the process is. I frequently receive correspondence from parents who are—to use the technical term—pulling their hair out in trying to engage with it.

He is absolutely right on the need to simplify the process. If we can ensure that the amendments answer some of the unanswered questions that I identified in my opening remarks, I think that we will have a very compelling package, in combining his amendments with the ones that I have lodged.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

After section 22

Amendment 84 not moved.

Amendment 65 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Extension of assessments to early learning and childcare

Amendments 85 to 94 not moved.

Sections 23 to 25 agreed to.

After section 25

Yes, we could definitely look at that. I am conscious that we are in December 2024. Purdah will probably be February 2026. The bill is at stage 2 and we have to get it to stage 3. We then need royal assent. In the spirit of realism, once we get royal assent, which normally takes a couple of weeks—sometimes a month—after stage 3, we are then into quite a tight year. Even if it were 18 months, you are looking at early in the next parliamentary session.

Perhaps the requirement is for us to demonstrate progress in the interim, short of laying the regulations. We could do something around a year from the legislation coming into force. Is that what you mean? We could definitely explore that. Rather than coming up with compromises here, I commit to coming up with a compromise prior to stage 3 that makes sense.

Amendments 79 and 80 require Scottish ministers to publish the results of consultations on Gaelic language standards and guidance. Not only am I hugely supportive of consultation, I am even more supportive of publishing the results of that consultation, so I am happy to support those amendments.

I have no need to wind up, other than to say that I think that we have an agreed way forward.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

After section 4

I will make a couple of points. As I said in a previous debate, I would envisage that, in areas of linguistic significance in particular, an intensive monitoring exercise would be required. If we simply take the top level of figures, which is the overall number, that can tell us different stories. By and large, however, it is currently telling us that there is a rise in the number of speakers. We around this table know that that does not tell the full story, because the general national rise in people with Gaelic-speaking skills may mask what is happening in traditional communities, and we believe that those traditional communities would be the foremost contenders to be areas of linguistic significance.

I would envisage there being a requirement on public bodies, with the support of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to evaluate the number of speakers, set out targets and monitor the success of those targets, which would inevitably require consideration of the number of speakers.

Their primary responsibility would be to increase the number of speakers and increase the depth of that understanding and that fluency in those local areas and, if we have not done so already, to look at a requirement to report in those areas. That is intensively local.

On parliamentary scrutiny, I dare not criticise the Parliament, but if there is a criticism of Government here, there is also perhaps a criticism of the Parliament for not taking sufficient interest in some of these issues—which this committee has done a lot to repair, to its credit. The way that this committee has taken evidence is commendable.

However, personally—if a Government minister dare say this—I would like to see the Parliament taking more of an interest, more regularly, in scrutinising the progress and the success of Gaelic language policies. I would like to see the Parliament asking ministers to report on that or to give further information—basically, for ministers to be scrutinised and held to account for what is or is not happening. There is nothing to stop that from happening right now.

That is a compelling argument for why I believe that this reporting should be done on an intensely localised basis. It is key to monitor progress within local communities. Even if you were to take a single island, the island of Skye, and look at the figures across that island, that would not tell you much about the health of the communities where the population is highly dense, in the north of the island.

Where we might want to move further is on how to report regularly to the Parliament on progress in the areas of linguistic significance, according to the plans that will have been established in those intensely local areas and on whether they are proving to be successful or not. That is where I whole-heartedly agree with the member and where I think that doing it purely on a national basis does not meet the aims and the ambitions.

Michael Marra’s amendment 67 requires us to look at the extent to which certain issues have been addressed by the bill’s provisions and at what other issues exist in relation to Gaelic communities and the use of the Gaelic language. Those are very laudable aims, but they are most relevant when applied to traditional Gaelic-speaking communities, so I think that that reporting should be done with regard to those areas. At the moment, the position would be that, if an area were designated as an area of linguistic significance, with a plan in place, that plan should then be monitored after consultation with local stakeholders.

On amendment 47, I take Michael Marra’s point that it does not have to be census methodology, but if there is a requirement to publish a report on the number of Gaelic language speakers in Scotland every two years, we may actually see very little fluctuation in those figures. We may see, for example, that more children are learning Gaelic, but the process is very resource intensive for getting quite a high-level view. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there might be merit in looking at how we include more parliamentary scrutiny in the reporting, without going down the route of national high-level census figures every two years.

On amendment 67, which is about reporting on the specific issues that the bill seeks to address, that sort of thing is done at an intensely local level. If the Gaelic community plan for a particular locality says, “The three priorities here are X, Y and Z,” the question is how the Parliament scrutinises whether any of those plans are successful. There could be an amendment to that effect as part of the areas of linguistic significance requirements.

My understanding is that that is correct. When it comes to the 2005 act, we are aware that data gathering has been a challenge and that we need to do more on that. The committee, too, flagged a criticism about the robustness of the data that we gather. That was a frequent refrain from the committee, so amendment 55 highlights our commitment on that.

I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 47, from my reading of it, would essentially create a requirement to report on the number of Gaelic speakers, at the level at which the census reports, every two years. While we would not argue with the desire to have far more frequent reporting on progress among Gaelic speakers, our sense is that, considering that it takes quite a long time to do the census, the strict schedules in amendment 47 would require a significant amount of resources and staffing. Again, the risk is that that would distract from the urgent need for action by focusing resources on reporting rather than delivery. There are also deeper questions around the methodology that would be involved in such reporting, which would have to be settled before making it a requirement on ministers. The reason why we lodged amendment 55 was to address that issue. In a way, it is less onerous and will, we hope, provide a greater depth of information.

Amendment 67 concerns a desire for more information and would require reporting on particular issues. The Gaelic language strategy and standards are the way for us to assess the issues that affect the language and its communities. There is a concern that the requirements in this amendment would, again, require a significant resource investment that would focus efforts away from the delivery of the bill’s measures. Again, we have lodged amendment 55 to try to address the issue.

I have previously stated that the challenges facing Gaelic require action across a range of issues relating to social and economic matters as much as to the themes of education, institutional planning and community development that will be the main focus of the bill. Interventions are under way that indicate the Government’s recognition of the need to provide a comprehensive approach to the language.

It is much nicer to be able to talk supportively about a number of amendments—not all of them, but most of them—in this group.

My amendment 29 sets out further detail about the functions that might be covered by standards in areas of linguistic significance. Again, that is in direct response to the committee, which said that an area of linguistic significance is only as important as the changes that it creates for communities.

Those areas will be designated in recognition of the demographic strength of Gaelic in them and/or the level of Gaelic activity. It is recognised that those qualities intersect with many other aspects of community and economic development in those areas, as the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic highlighted.

It is correct, therefore, that the Scottish Languages Bill should provide further detail for public authorities on the sorts of provisions that might be made in standards within an area of linguistic significance.

Amendment 29 also ensures that language planning and development are tied in with other objectives, such as community planning and economic development. I am so often struck by the fact that the aims and aspirations of Gaelic speakers in some traditional communities are very much intertwined with the desires and aspirations of those who do not have Gaelic language. Issues around infrastructure and transport are obvious examples. That is consistent with other measures in the bill, as well as other Scottish Government strategies.

Amendment 28 provides further clarity on the nature of provision that could be included in the standards. Amendments 26 and 27 convert the power to make standards into a duty. I am of the view that it was always the intention to exercise that power. We are content to support those amendments because of the urgency of the situation, as Michael Marra has set out.

Amendments 30 and 31 require an additional procedural step of laying regulations in draft form for consultation. I am a big fan of consulting on things, so I am happy to support those amendments.

Amendment 32 is where we perhaps have a slightly different view. I take on board Michael Marra’s point about the perilous state of the language and the urgency of the required response. The amendment imposes a strict time limit of one year from royal assent for the first laying of regulations. We feel that that could be too restrictive. We want to be able to develop the standards and requirements properly, in consultation with stakeholders, as required by the existing provisions in the bill, which would be enhanced by Michael Marra’s amendments 30 and 31. Meeting the time limit in amendment 32 could hit a number of challenges, not all of which are within the Government’s control. For example, it is quite likely that, on this occasion, the time limit would run into the end of the current five-year parliamentary session, which would risk making the ability to meet the time limit challenging or impossible. The spirit of amendment 32 is well understood, but we feel that keeping to the time limit will not always be possible and that, therefore, it is too restrictive.

Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s reporting on Scottish ministers’ progress and public authority compliance is essential. Ross Greer is right to highlight it as an important issue, in which I hope Parliament continues to take an interest. However, we want to try to avoid a situation in which Bòrd na Gàidhlig spends the whole year producing the next report, which would be a distraction. It is a small and nimble organisation, and I would like as much of its time and effort as possible to be deployed in promoting Gaelic and supporting communities rather than producing reports.

The annual timeframe that the amendments propose would be demanding for the task that Ross Greer highlighted. It would be a lot to do in a relatively short time, which would reduce the quality of the information collected and hamper any follow-up activity that was required. Our preference would be to allow the bòrd discretion to set its own reporting timescales. An annual timescale is an overly onerous duty and potentially counterproductive, which is why we reluctantly cannot support Ross Greer’s amendments.

I would be very open to that. Perhaps my answers are slightly less fluent, because I really care that members are keen to push the Government further on achieving the aims in relation to Gaelic.

However, I think that the three targets in amendment 8 are not very reflective of where the conversation on Gaelic language policy is just now. At the moment, the big debate is about the fact that, although we have seen an increase overall in Gaelic speakers, we are seeing a decline in the traditional Gaelic-speaking areas, and the targets do not go to the heart of that, nor do they go to the heart of the breadth of where a Gaelic speaker can use their language. A person might speak the language or have some skill in it, which would meet target (a) in amendment 8, but it might be the case that they cannot actually use the language anywhere.

We know that, when it comes to policy development in any sphere of Government or public sector work, the moment that targets are set down in primary legislation all activity becomes consumed with achieving them. If they are the wrong targets, that would mean that, over the next 10 years, we would be engaged in meeting targets that are wrong, and I reckon that we would be back here in a few years’ time saying, “Well, as the 2024 census results revealed, the figures are going up, so the Government can celebrate, theoretically, having met the legislative requirements.” However, you could rightly say to me—if I am still a minister at that point—that that does not mean anything, because in the Western Isles, the north of Skye, Tiree, Islay and such places, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of speakers. That is why I am nervous about putting the wrong targets in the bill; it would focus all the scrutiny on whether we had met them, instead of our having a more flexible approach in strategy.

I suggest that Parliament should hold ministers to account for being required to meet, report on and gather evidence on targets. However, we have to be very careful that we do not put the wrong targets in the bill.